Dual-Licensing Situation

[AR]

Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> AR wrote:
>   
>> There has *got* to be something wrong with that!  I had accepted 
>> restrictions that the initial license didn't even mention!
>>     
>
> Of course there's something wrong with that. It is a fundamental
> principle of contract law that you cannot be bound by something
> you could not have known when entering into the agreement. 
>
> If they tell you in advance "it's either GPLv2 or our proprietary
> license; choose now and be bound forever", then it is your choice
> and you must stick with it.
>   

OK.  So I have finally gotten someone to see the problem.  You're right 
about contract law.  I am not sure if license agreements are considered 
contracts in law, but I would expect the principles to be the same:  The 
licensee must be told what the license is doing to him prior to his 
accepting it.

>   
>> 1. Because the essential terms of the proprietary license depend on the 
>> acceptance or refusal of the GPLv2 license, they are materially one 
>> (invalid) license despite the fact that they are calling them two.
>>     
>
> "These are my license terms. If you don't like them, I have others."
> Apart from being a play on a very old joke, I don't see anything
> wrong with it.
>   

You are again seeing my point, I believe.  It is not possible to make 
your decision without taking into consideration *both* licenses because 
one license influences the other.  They are effectually one license 
whose terms must be presented to the licensee up front.